News Edwards will one day be president

This guy is a superstar. I just watched his speech at the convention. WOW! Edwards has the ability to connect with people at a core level. If he is half the man I believe him to be, and barring disaster, I think Edwards will be a fixture from here on for a very long time to come. I caught a look on T Kennedy's face at one point when the crowd was going nuts. Kennedy was beaming like a proud new father.

This guy is a superstar. I just watched his speech at the convention. WOW! Edwards has the ability to connect with people at a core level. If he is half the man I believe him to be, and barring disaster, I think Edwards will be a fixture from here on for a very long time to come. I caught a look on T Kennedy's face at one point when the crowd was going nuts. Kennedy was beaming like a proud new father.

Who knows, maybe we'll get 8 years Kerry/Edwards, then 8 Years Edwards/Obama, then 8 Years Obama/Republican woman, then peace and prosperity for all times...

I only happened to catch the last 30 seconds of Edwards speech, but I do agree, I think after the vice presidency (let's hope), he'd have a great shot at becoming president.

I think the reason why he didn't win the democratic nomination for president is simply because he looks too fresh faced and inexperienced to be president. But he is a damn good speaker.

I saw Barack Obama's speech the other day. He's a rising star, don’t you think? I'm not sure about any of his policies but he is also a very good speaker and very passionate...though this is hardly the only reason why someone should vote for someone, but he seems like he would be able to rally support for himself though.

This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: ``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''

Dr. Krauthammer points out

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty. Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, John Kerry referred not once but four times to the ``ban'' on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Christopher Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's.

The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dr. Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in biochemically clearing the ``plaque'' deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase ``stem cells'' having crossed his lips.

What Dr. Krauthammer failed to points out was how the Democrats, at their National convention, took advantage of the Reagan family in their time of grief.

The Democrats are so desperate to win at all cost, they have resorted to grave robbing. They have become little more than ghouls.

John Edwards consistently votes against any kind of tax cuts or tax reform and in favor of spending increases. In 1999 he voted against reducing taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.

Ouch

The next year he voted against limiting discretionary spending.

Double ouch.

In 2001 he voted against reducing capitol gains and President Bush’s Tax Relief Package. In 2002, he voted against permanently repealing the death tax...

Edwards supports increasing the minimum wage, a position that costs jobs for entry-level and low-income workers.

Aha

... he does not support personal retirement accounts. He does not even support a Social Security lockbox.

Wow this is looking bad

He voted against an amendment that would have given parents the right to create a tax-free educational savings account of up to $2000 per child per year to fund public or private school tuition or other educational expenses....He voted yes to grant public schools $2.4 billion to reduce class sizes and another $200 million to fund standardized testing instead of private tutoring.

Oh he's one of those guys is he? It's almost like he's picking exactly the things I think are important and doing exactly what I disagree with.

John Edwards touts the promise of Stem Cell research, saying people who are paralyzed could be able to walk again if Kerry is president and allows more and better stem cell funding. This, after there have been tests in which laboratory rats had been paralyzed, had stem cells injected into their spine, and regained nerve tissue and mobility. A few days lator, Christopher Reeves dies, and John Edwards is a ruthless bastard.

MEANWHILE, back in the whitehouse.

"Simply stated, there is now no doubt Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction"
- Cheney, 8/26/02

To begin with, we were not talking about Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or Bush, we are talking about Edwards, Kerry and the Democrats.

I'm not sure why you say that Edwards was a "ruthless bastard" because Chris Reeves died. Edwards was a ruthless bastard before he ever ran for the senate. He made his money in lawsuits against doctors and the medical industry. You know they type of lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and drive up the cost of research. You know research like in stem cell research.

Case history

As a trial lawyer, Sen. John Edwards (D, N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate, won at least 94 cases, as reported to Lawyers Weekly. Here are some statistics about them:

This, after there have been tests in which laboratory rats had been paralyzed, had stem cells injected into their spine, and regained nerve tissue and mobility.

How can that be???? I thought Kerry said

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, John Kerry referred not once but four times to the ``ban'' on stem cell research instituted by Bush.

You must have not have read this. Either that or you are dismissing it as unimportant.

Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

If there were 35,000 shipments of stem cells available, would that make a difference?

you're going to hold it against John Edwards that Christopher Reeves died?

Yes, he and the trial lawyers that drive up the cost doing research are partly to blame.

To begin with, we were not talking about Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or Bush, we are talking about Edwards, Kerry and the Democrats.

So I was right, you completely dismissed them. The current administration was 100% wrong about the reason they took us to war on, but you don't seem to mind, you only seem to care that John Edwards said people like a famous actor could benefit from stem-cell research, and said actor died.

Outcast said:

I'm not sure why you say that Edwards was a "ruthless bastard" because Chris Reeves died. Edwards was a ruthless bastard before he ever ran for the senate. He made his money in lawsuits against doctors and the medical industry. You know they type of lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and drive up the cost of research. You know research like in stem cell research.

You want to point out a specific case in which he ruthlessly sued a doctor or the medical industry where it wasn't just? You know, the reason their are lawyers like him are to protect people who get hurt by doctors etc. Was Edwards being ruthless when he sued a pool parts company because their filter sucked out a little girls colon? Please elaborate how edwards suing against doctor incompetency or corporate negligence affected stem cell research in any way.

Outcast said:

How can that be???? I thought Kerry said "bush banned stem cell research"

John Kerry is a politician. He distorts the facts, as all politicians do, let us try to hold our discourse to a higher standard than the rhetoric of politicians. However, it is true that bush has banned federal funding for any lines of stem-cells that weren't already being used in August 2001.

Outcast said:

You must have not have read this. Either that or you are dismissing it as unimportant. If there were 35,000 shipments of stem cells available, would that make a difference?

Yeah, it'd make a difference if more groups of scientists had thousands more stem cell lines and more funding towards the research.

Outcast said:

Yes, he and the trial lawyers that drive up the cost doing research are partly to blame.

Again, explain to me how trial lawyers suing doctors and corporations make it harder for the government to give money to people who want to do stem cell research.

What Dr. Krauthammer failed to points out was how the Democrats, at their National convention, took advantage of the Reagan family in their time of grief.

The Democrats are so desperate to win at all cost, they have resorted to grave robbing. They have become little more than ghouls.

What a crock of $#!t ! Ron Reagan is a part of the Reagan family. And he's been voicing his opinions both before and after the DNC.

Oh, and by the way, I think Dr. Krauthammer is despicable neo-con. I remember an op-ed he wrote for the Post about a year ago, where he doctored an transcript in order to diagnose Howard Dean as mentally unstable.

What a crock of $#!t ! Ron Reagan is a part of the Reagan family. And he's been voicing his opinions both before and after the DNC.

Did I say that Ronald Reagan was not part of the Reagan family? I'm not sure where you came up with that one from. Anyway Reagan never made many public appearances after leaving office in 1988. I don't recall him expressing his opinion on anything prior to the DNC. Since he died shortly before the DNC was held, I don't believe he was expressing his opinion after the DNC.

In 1978, he quit medical practice, came to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research in the Carter Administration, and began contributing articles to The New Republic. During the Presidential campaign of 1980, he served as a speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale.

On your first point, it seems clear that you are not aware of the difference between Ron Reagan, the openly democratic son of the former President, and his father. Nor do you, in fact seem to be aware of the existence of this son.

On your second point, please Google "krauthammer neocon" and you will receive sufficient validation to my claim. What he did 25 years ago has little to do with what he thinks now. Krauthammer is openly neocon and admits it quite plainly.

So I was right, you completely dismissed them. The current administration was 100% wrong about the reason they took us to war on, but you don't seem to mind, you only seem to care that John Edwards said people like a famous actor could benefit from stem-cell research, and said actor died.

The name of the thread is Edwards will one day be president. You went off topic with the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. When I pointed it out that "we were not talking about......", you acted like you won a major debate.

You want to point out a specific case in which he ruthlessly sued a doctor or the medical industry where it wasn't just?

You know, the reason their are lawyers like him are to protect people who get hurt by doctors etc. Was Edwards being ruthless when he sued a pool parts company because their filter sucked out a little girls colon?

Please elaborate how edwards suing against doctor incompetency or corporate negligence affected stem cell research in any way.

John Kerry is a politician. He distorts the facts, as all politicians do, let us try to hold our discourse to a higher standard than the rhetoric of politicians. However, it is true that bush has banned federal funding for any lines of stem-cells that weren't already being used in August 2001.

Yeah, it'd make a difference if more groups of scientists had thousands more stem cell lines and more funding towards the research.

Again, explain to me how trial lawyers suing doctors and corporations make it harder for the government to give money to people who want to do stem cell research.

You need to learn to read English. Either that or you are a real politician the way you distort everything you read. Where did I say

trial lawyers suing doctors and corporations make it harder for the government to give money to people who want to do stem cell research?

On your first point, it seems clear that you are not aware of the difference between Ron Reagan, the openly democratic son of the former President, and his father. Nor do you, in fact seem to be aware of the existence of this son.

On your second point, please Google "krauthammer neocon" and you will receive sufficient validation to my claim. What he did 25 years ago has little to do with what he thinks now. Krauthammer is openly neocon and admits it quite plainly.